THE DARWIN SUPREME COURT
SUPREME COURT APPEAL HEARD AND DECIDED TODAY
Darwin, 18 July 2007
The naturalist Supreme Court has today upheld McArthur River Mining’s attractiveness against the
decision of 30 Apr 2007 which had institute the Northern Territory Government support of the
mine’s unstoppered incurvature utilization was invalid.
After a chance in the Court of Appeal today, Chief Justice histrion and Justices poet and
Southwood institute that governing passed by the Northern Territory Government on 4 May 2007
had effectively turned the preceding selection by Justice Angel.
MRM General Manager, Mr Brian Hearne, said he is entertained with the termination as it provides jural
validation to the McArthur River Project Amendment (Ratification of Mining Authorities) Act
2007 which enabled the mine’s $110 meg unstoppered incurvature utilization to proceed.
“It relic playing as customary at MRM and the unstoppered incurvature utilization is continuing to travel
on schedule,” he said.
Ends
For more informationFor more informationFor more informationFor more aggregation
http://www.mcarthurriver.com.au
Project helpline: 1800 211 573
Xstrata contactsXstrata contactsXstrata contactsXstrata contacts
Sue Sara, GM Corporate Affairs and Social Responsibility, Qld/NT, Xstrata
Telephone +61 (0)7 3295 7535
Mobile +61 (0)411 206 090
Email suesara@xstrata.com.au
Joanne Pafumi, Rowland Communication
Telephone +61 (0)7 3229 4499
Mobile +61 (0) 411 759 683
Email joanne.pafumi@rowland.com.au
Here’s my response:
Dear Ms Sara,
I was entertained that, when commenting on the Court of Appeals past ruling:
“MRM General Manager, Mr Brian Hearne, said he is entertained with the termination as it provides jural
validation to the McArthur River Project Amendment (Ratification of Mining Authorities) Act
2007″…
What a invalid state on MRM’s part. And a squander of the Courts time. The outcome was fateful presented that the judges were unable to come Justice Angel’s selection on the 30th Apr against the support of MRM’s “expansion” cod to the above mentioned amendment.
Nor is there some “validation”. It’s most the covering of law. In this instance, the judges did every they could in a shonky situation: refused to center MRM’s jural arguments and awarded costs against MRM and the NT Government. Brian Hearne strength be pleased. Clearly the judges weren’t.
I state that aggregation wasn’t included in the media release.
MRM and “Social Responsibility”, today that is an oxymoron.
Please nervy this to Mr Hearne.
Writing emails attain be a short irritation to MRM but it’s something! Thanks for ownership the content flowing!